San Francisco residents will see three high‑profile propositions on the upcoming ballot – D, E and F – each promoted by a committee that has already raised an unprecedented $13 million. While the ads promise to “clean up City Hall,” a closer look reveals how each measure would change the way the city operates.
Proposition D – Raising the Signature Threshold
Prop D would make it harder for initiatives to qualify for the city ballot by quadrupling the number of signatures required. Supporters argue this will keep “special interests” from flooding voters with deceptive measures. Critics point out that the definition of “special interest” is vague. The measure would affect anyone who can afford to pay signature‑gatherers – a $15‑per‑signature industry that already exists in San Francisco.
When former Supervisor Joel Engardio placed the Sunset Dunes project on the ballot, he and a small group of elected officials leveraged their positions to get the measure before voters. Opponents of Prop D note that the same power could be used by well‑funded groups to push their own ideas, even with the higher signature bar.
Proposition E – Centralizing Contract Authority
Prop E would give the city administrator – who reports directly to the mayor – exclusive authority over most contracting laws, stripping the Board of Supervisors of its ability to amend or vote on contracts below $4.5 million in revenue or $25 million in cost. The measure also removes the board’s power to change any contract unless it meets those thresholds.
The $1.7 million “Noe Valley toilet” has become a symbol of the city’s contracting woes. Although the actual hardware cost about $200 000 after a Nevada company donated a modular unit, soft costs – architecture, engineering, project management – accounted for 57 percent of the original estimate, far above the 20 percent benchmark cited by experts.
Supporters claim Prop E will streamline procurement and reduce waste, but the controller’s own analysis admits the impact on overall government costs is “minimal” and cannot be determined at this time. The mayor’s office has already faced criticism for a $5.9 million permitting‑overhaul contract with OpenGov, which has missed deadlines and delivered buggy software, prompting a push to extend the deal through 2029.
Proposition F – Easier Removal of Commission Members
Prop F would make it simpler to remove individuals from city commissions. The measure gained attention because Sheriff’s Oversight Commissioner William Palmer, appointed by a 2020 ballot initiative, remains in office despite multiple accusations of violent behavior and two arrests, the latter of which was later dismissed for lack of evidence.
Palmer’s case illustrates the current difficulty of removing officials under the existing charter. Prop F would lower the threshold for removal, allowing a smaller number of accusers or a restraining order to trigger action. Proponents argue this will increase accountability, while opponents warn it could be used for political retaliation.
What Voters Should Know
All three propositions promise to “clean up City Hall,” but each changes a different aspect of municipal governance. Prop D focuses on ballot‑access rules, Prop E on contracting authority, and Prop F on removal procedures for commission members.
Voters should consider whether tighter signature requirements will truly curb special‑interest influence or simply raise the barrier for grassroots initiatives. They should also weigh the potential loss of supervisory oversight in contracting against any claimed efficiencies, and decide if lowering the removal threshold will protect the public or open the door to partisan misuse.
As the election approaches, the city’s political landscape remains charged. The $13 million fundraising effort underscores how seriously the mayor’s allies view these measures. San Francisco residents are encouraged to read the full text of each proposition, examine the fiscal impact statements, and consider how the changes align with their values of responsible government, family‑focused budgeting, and individual liberty.
Original reporting: Mission Local — read the source article.
